Customer Reviews

The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

I read this book because I would like to add a Russian component to the masters thesis I am working on, and thought it would give me good background. Alas, while the book was an entertaining read, it is practically useless academically. Mr Lucas' prose drips with outrage and disdain toward Russia's leaders--and I sometimes got the feeling that his attitude extends toward all Russian people. Although I don't have a deep background in this field, it was pretty obvious that Mr Lucas glosses over very complicated events in order to substantiate his own rather simplistic argument. The book quotes very few sources and mostly regurgitates events that have already been widely reported on. The author's lack of nuance is the most troubling--everything boils down to Putin/Russia = power/control/corruption/bad--which left me with very little I could use in a serious paper. By the end of the book, I had the impression that I had read a polemic summary of everything bad the mainstream Western media has had to say about Russia over the past couple of years, which might explain why it appears to have gotten so many good reviews from major news outlets.

Mr Lucas may be right, and he certainly has a valid opinion on Russia's politics and the direction the country is going. However, I hope that anyone who would like to read this book understands what it is--the strongly written personal opinion of a journalist who has been covering Russia for a few years. It is certainly not an objective or meticulous study of any aspect of contemporary Russia.

That this book was hastened to press is evident from the numerous typos that occasionally blunder over into silly factual errors (Henry Truman, Kirgistan). The prose is also, while engaging, at times under-edited. Yet one wants to overlook these shortcomings, as Edward Lucas is an important and influential observer of things Russian, having served for several years as the Economist magazine's bureau chief in Moscow.

Drawing on this experience, Lucas recounts a decade of Russian domestic and foreign policy crises, arguing that Russia is a dangerous foe, bullying its neighbors, cornering natural resource markets, crushing internal dissent and defrauding foreign investors. "Repression at home is matched by aggression abroad," Lucas writes. "Russia is reverting to behavior last seen during the Soviet era," yet now it is not "the Kremlin's tanks thundering into Afghanistan that signal[s] the West's weakness; now it is Kremlin banks thundering through the city of London."

Yet, Lucas notes that, while Russia's "tactics are increasingly clear and effective... the goal is still puzzling." Imputing intent from actions, he concludes that Russia "...wants to be respected, trusted, and liked, but will not act in a way that gains respect, nurtures trust, or wins affection. It settles for being noticed - even when that comes as a result of behavior that alienates and intimidates other countries. It compensates for real weakness by showing pretend strength." In short, we should be worried about Russia because it is reasserting itself in the world, and it is doing so with methods that scorn (or undermine) the cherished values of Western Liberal Societies: free trade, primacy of individual liberties, the rule of law.

Fair enough. The facts of the Putinera events are presented well. And his argument is logical. Yet flawed. For none of these things are certainties: that a richer, more emboldened Russia will threaten international stability, that Russia will become more authoritarian over time, rather than less, that Russian civil or commercial interests will continue to quietly acquiesce in the erosion of civil liberties, that Russian actions over the past decade are part of a coordinated Eastern Front in a New Cold War.

This latter is the weakest leg of Lucas' argument. Many Russian actions internally and externally over this period have been reprehensible. But to assert that those actions belie an orchestrated intent is to give Russian policymakers more credit than is their due.

In fact, events seem to show nothing so much as that Russia is blundering about blindly in its foreign policy. There is no wizard behind the Kremlin curtain, shaping a cohesive international plan. Indeed, The New Cold War is a ruthless cataloguing of Russia's nearly unbroken string of foreign policy failures since 2000: Chechnya, Estonia, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia... Lucas repeatedly shows how Russia has overplayed its hand in its attempts to influence and cajole its neighbors, in the end assenting to an outcome it initially insisted was untenable (e.g. the current missile defense debate). Russia, Lucas writes, "is too weak to have a truly effective independent foreign policy, but it is too disgruntled and neurotic to have a sensible and constructive one."

So which is it? Should Russian foreign policy make us tremble with fear or with laughter? Maybe both. Lucas' treatment of domestic issues suffers from the same disconnect. Recounting the decline of pluralism and a free press, and the rise of corruption and statism in business,

Lucas forecasts gloom and doom while at the same time pointing out the massive inefficiencies of state-run enterprises. It is not clear: are the behemoths taking over the economy or teetering on the brink of collapse? And if one believes (as Lucas seems to) that modern commerce needs a free and open society to survive, how can one not have confidence in the power of the market to eventually overrun any government gates that hem it in?

The mind yearns for simple, logical explanations. But it is not always good to give the mind what it wants. Sometimes it is best to accept complexity and not try to explain irrational behavior with logical arguments. Recommendation: Read this book for its superb account of the Putin era, but overlook its typographical and theoretical errors. (Reviewed in Russian Life)

This exaggerated and paranoid book fuses genuine strategic concerns with Russophobe ideas worthy of the rightwing xenophobic rags. Shockingly to me, Lucas is also editor of the Economist. According to this book, the Russians are out there to manipulate, corrupt and subjugate the freedom-loving Europeans, and the Russkies are doing "pincer movement on Europe" using pipelines and their financial resources of their fascist petro-state. The lesson: "we" are not safe; we must unite in the face of this new threat and rollback the Russian political and economic aggression. Any financial deals with Russia must be scrutinized, Russian companies should be de-listed, and Russia must be expelled from G8 club and other International organizations. (On page 212, Lucas claims that allowing membership of Russia in the European organizations was a "disastrous mistake"). "We" want Russia out of Europe (he used "we" and "us" a lot).

On the personal level, as a native of Russia, I feel offended to read this kind of russophobic views, where pure allegations (Lucas represents too many unknowns as "knowns") are represented as facts. Read that the Russians represent danger, allegations that the Russians are out there to dominate Europe. It rings to me a kind of old anti-Semitic idea, which still lingers in Europe, about the foreign plutocrats which is out there to take advantage of the ostensibly honest and hard-working Europeans. Only the Jews in this schema are replaced with the Russians. It is offensive to read that they are portrayed like brainless idiots or like children - they need Vladimir Putin because they want to have someone in charge. It is offensive to read that the Russians represent values which are alien to "us".

The real purpose of the book is to undermine a delicate modus vivendi with the Russian state. I'm not sure for what purpose, his agenda is hidden. I'm not sure if escalation with Russia serves the US interests (Obama's tactical "reset" is as good proof as any). The hitch is that the Anglo-American elites (presumably the "we" in Lucas' book) well aware that they need to maintain some kind of modus vivendi with Russia, but they really don't want to, at least reluctant. It's just goes against the grain. On the surface, this is because Putin is ex-KGB, not democratic, not "one of us", but the reality is much more complicated: it is realties of the "Grand Strategy" married to the complicated mix of history and racial stereotypes. As far as members of the US establishment are concerned, the fall of communism and the end of Soviet Union didn't changed their hostility to Russia as a state.

The situation would change only, as Anatol Lieven had perceptively once noted, if Russia adopted a position of complete subservience to American wishes not only in the World as a whole, but in its own region. I would agree with Lieven that this is no Russian state will ever accept. This is the core of the issue. That is of course unless Russia is militarily defeated by the NATO, which would be a pyrrhic victory in my view.

It is rather curious to see how swiftly the book was translated into all Eastern European languages and how the speaking tours have been organized to promote his anti-Russian ideas in Europe and North America. A curious fact is that in the Russian translation of the book is subtitled "Kremlin and the threat to the West" while in English the "Kremlin" is substituted to "Putin's Russia". He is well aware that Putin is very popular in Russia and "Putin's threat" won't sell there.

As Alex Zaitchik had noted in eXile, Lucas' deep personal and professional ties are to the Balts (Estonia) and to Poland. It helps explain why he is so upset with projects like the Baltic Sea Russo-German pipeline that will deliver Russian gas directly to Germany by 2011. When completed, Poland will lose up to $1 billion a year in transit fees; Russia is also building a large terminal next to the Estonia's border, which means that the Estonian companies will be losing millions. But despite these nations' temper tantrums, there is no excuse for peddling conspiracy theories. Lucas is a salesman of an anti-Russian world-view, which unfortunately for Russia has its powerful lobby in Anglo-America and its client states in Eastern Europe. What the Russians can do is to quietly build up the economy, respond calmly to allegations and turn to the BRIC countries and Germany for trade and political support, while maintaining a friendly façade with the rest of the West. And read Tolstoy and Clausewitz instead.

The end of the Cold War has been one of the watershed moments of the twentieth century. The tension between the Soviet Union and its allies on one hand, and the Western capitalist democracies on the other, has completely dominated all of international relations for almost half a century. The collapse of the Soviet Union had spurred hopes that the days of bipolar world and the constant threat of total nuclear holocaust are finally behind us. For some time it looked that Russia and a myriad other post-Soviet republics are firmly on a path of joining the West in emulation the institutions and practices of modern liberal democracies. Russia in particular, despite all of its massive economic troubles, seemed to be opening more and more and getting increasingly integrated in the international institutions and treaties. However, the beginning of the twenty-first century saw a dramatic reversal in political and personal freedoms within Russia and an increasing hostility and open challenge to the Western nations on international front. This renewed Russian belligerence and repression of political freedoms is the consequence of the arrival of Vladimir Putin on the scene, and his systematic attempts to reverse what is perceived by many in Russia as the whole scale national decline into chaos and lawlessness.

All of these developments and many others that are not so familiar to the western observers are chronicled with an unprecedented detail and thoroughness by Edward Lucas in "The New Cold war." Edward Lucas is one of the best journalists who specialize in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics. He relies heavily on his own journalistic contacts and experiences to weave a powerful and informative narrative of Putin's Russia and the power structures and mechanism that it employs. The picture is oftentimes very brutal and ugly, but this is just a reflection of the facts on the ground.

The second part of the book deals with the geopolitical threats that the resurgent Russia poses to its neighbors and the West. This part of the book is much shorter than the part that deals with internal Russian affairs, and the information is not as fresh and original. This is all rather unfortunate, since the book's title and the premise imply that the main focus of this book is on new Russia's foreign affairs and dealings, and how this constitutes a threat to the World on par with the Cold War. The reader takes home the message that Russia, despite its very sketchy and unsavory domestic and international politics is nowhere near to its erstwhile power to disrupt the peace and stability in the World. This may indeed be the accurate picture of the true potential and importance of Russia right now, but if the author wanted to alert the public to Russia's international aspirations then this book falls short. I truly hope to find the answer to this dilemma, and would like to read a book that is in fact entirely devoted to Russia's current diplomatic relations.

This book is written by a dinosaur from the old gone time. These people will always fear Russia. The analysis of Russian reality in this book is clearly biased and doesn't show the complexities of Russia's reality. I wouldn't reccomend this book to anyone who wants to know the truth about modern day Russia.

This book is so full of contradictions and the biased opinion of a russophobe that I can't understand how anyone takes it seriously.I will give you some examples.On the one hand ,Russia's nuclear arsenal is the only thing it posseses that gives it any claim to be a military superpower.A few sentences down,we learn that its ability to launch a devastating nuclear attack on NATO is history.On the one hand russia is a "giant ,nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia so rich and powerful.. with a weight not seen since the 1950s" but on the other it is doomed to collapse.Mr Lucas mentions how Russia is no longer a global adversary but the title of the book does not give you that impression.

Mr.Lucas also shows a personal apathy to Mr.Putin.Yeltsin ,the man who bombed his own parliament defying his Constitutional court in the process ,introduced rigged and manipulated elections (acording to his own memoir ,at one point even considering postponing it indefinitely,dissolving parliament and banning the Communist PArty),started a brutal war ,created a parasitic oligarchy ,made a deal with Putin so that he did not get prosecuted for corruption ,saw a number of journalists and parliamentarians killed ,was hated by most of his subjects and was drunk for most of his reign is lauded as a flawed but democratic hero.Putin who is popular with his countrymen,pursued sensible economic policies (although lucky to have high oil and gas prices),reined in the oligarchs and regional governors ,crushed the chechen separatists , restored Russia's prestige and obeyed the Constitution is labelled as a tyrant.Never mind that China,Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan have far worse human right records (Mr.Lucas even supports doing business with some of these countries to exclude Russia),yet Mr.Lucas is silent about these countries.Mr.Lucas does not even bother to disguise his feelings on the matter,he admits that the day Russian soldiers left the Baltic states was the happiest in his life.My opinion ,only russophobic people will like such a book.

The arguments in the book are actually not arguments: they are a collection of name calling, branding, and bumper-sticker slogans. Lucas successfully revives the worst of the Cold War journalism and applies it in a hurry to Russia. It is apparent from this collection of assertions, assumptions, and plain bias, that Lucas doesn't like Russia or the Russians. One suspects a possible case of the "small nation syndrome", made more acute by Russian recovery under Putin. Yet, though Russia is dangerous, Lucas will not conclude that Russia is strong - this would mean that the country is recovering and is becoming successful under Putin. Hence Lucas sprinkles his haphazard but instinctive attacks on the country and its leaders with assurances for himself and his unfortunate readers that Russia somehow will fail, has failed. Utterly left out is an analysis of past conduct of other powers and neighbors of Russia - or at least a short discussion of American moves since 1992, as it should be clear that states do not act in a vacuum, but have to react to threats. Before publishing this paranoid and alarmist tabloid, Lucas would have been well advised to submit a few drafts to reputed scholars for comments and criticism, like undergrads and graduate students do.

A comprehensive analysis of how Russia has changed under President Putin and how much of the freedom and openess granted during the 1990's has been taken back. The majority of the Russian people currently seem to be happy about this and are more comfortable under a strong authoritarian leadership. The contrast with Russia's loss of stature in the world during the late 1980's and the 1990's has been reversed. Partly because of state control of resources and the significant rise in oil prices Putin has helped Russia move from its status as a bankrupt, defaulting country in 1998 to a world power again. Many elements of change resemble policies that were prevalent during the Soviet period, however, there are significant differences as well.The author is well aquainted with the Russian situation and has captured much of what has taken place in the Putin years and how Russia has reemerged as a world power and is currently challenging the West, including America, economically as well as politically and militarily.

The warnings about Putin and his new Russia are very important. I wish the EU and USA would wake up to the danger.

Edward Lucas writes the terrible truth about what is going on in Russia in "The New Cold War." The tale is not watered down like it is in Lucas' articles in The Economist.

I wish he could convince The Economist to produce articles more similar to this book. For example, regarding Russian influence causing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to use public money to support Kremlin-backed banks.

John Christmas, author of "Democracy Society"

Great book, well-researched by the author who spent many years inside Russia and, as such, has personal and first hand insight to the changes that have taken place since Putin came to power. A great read for the patient reader. The only drawback is that the chapters are extremely long requiring at least an hour to read each. The book could have been organized better to make it more readable. Nonethless, I highly recommend it for the serious Russian observer.